Monday, August 07, 2006

"Yes, net neutrality. Who would have thought telecommunications could create such exaggerated name calling? After hearing only the opposing arguments, one would conclude robber barons on one side of the table are arm-wrestling robber barons on the other side of the table to see who can be the first to destroy the Internet."

Finally, someone "gets it".

Yes, there is the distinct possibility that someone has or will take unfair advantage of the Internet.

I defy you to write a paragraph describing how to stop it.

OK, lets pass this law: "All must play fair on the Internet."

OK, now how to you enforce it? It will always come back to a building (or buildings) full of bureaucrats, the first generation of which may actually be subject-matter experts of sorts. But it ends up in 10 years being thousands of people putting in their time for the government pension and not answering the phone because it might involve some unpleasant work activity.

I'd much rather have choices, between telephone wires, TV cables, and through the air transmissions of data and let these companies continue to batter each other over the head to get our business than anything designed to "improve things" that might come from Capitol Hill.

Sorry, but Net Neutrality advocates simply haven't paid attention to the history of such things.

Go after abusers of the system by all means, but a pro-active "play fair" law not only won't guarantee fair-play, but will guarantee that some companies will achieve "favored" status and be able to exclude everyone else. Just like we already have with regulated phone and cable access.